/liberty/ -For an individual to be considered a human being, he has to recognise other human beings as so, thus, as humanity derivates from the ability to hold property, those who do not respect other's properties do not deserve to be respected as human and should be

Name
Email
Subject	REC STOP
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
Password	(Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
Archive	Archive [500 char limit]
* = required field	[▶Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

Flag	open flag menu
Embed	(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options	Do not bump (you can also write sage in the email field)
Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webp,webm, mp4, mov, pdf Max filesize is16 MB. Max image dimensions are15000 x15000. You may upload5 per post.

File: b5cb44a8e14b670⋯.jpg (24.25 KB,336x358,168:179,hoppe.jpg)

Anonymous 04/25/19 (Thu) 00:51:53 No.101609

For an individual to be considered a human being, he has to recognise other human beings as so, thus, as humanity derivates from the ability to hold property, those who do not respect other's properties do not deserve to be respected as human and should be both legal and ethical to shoot them on spot.

Let's say, for the shake of argument, that I don't allow my property to be polluted, such a thing allows me to ask for a compensation if somebody polluted my land or my body with chemicals, cigarrete smoke, etc… a refusal to provide such compensation would allow me to shot the aggresor in the spot or to force my way into earn such compensation, like organ harvesting or debtors prision (which is not slavery like statist say, as nobody forces you to commit crimes, thus being this kind of "forced" labour voluntary at the end).

The exact same logic applies to IP, the main reason why I like article 13 so much, it does not matter, at all, if ideas or information are abundant in nature (they are not- as they relay on scarce resources like time and energy), let me explain:

Water and air are both abundant in nature, however, both their harvesting and removal of pollution requiere resources that are not scarce, pretty much the same can be applied to IP.

As a side note, IP should be eternal, saying otherwhise would be geolibertarian pink-socialism, asking IP to expire is like asking land property rights to expire.

As both a Disney and Activision-Blizzard shareholder you are literally taking food out of my mouth.

So stop illegaly downloading online content you socialist brats or the day of the rope will come sooner than you think.

Thanks for your time faggotred swine. -L

<tfw this is my 5th try of uploading this shit

Thanks Josh, you PHP pro.

____________________________

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Anonymous 04/25/19 (Thu) 01:12:29 No.101610

File: 73ae684d7511e58⋯.png (3.63 KB,119x179,119:179,dumb.png)

First, how can you not know how to post on 8ch correctly yet? If it's stuck at 100% wait and open up another window to see when it's posted.

Second, pic related exists. Stop clogging up this board with your triple posts. Our BO is too retarded to do it himself.

Third, IP is not just abundant, it is infinite. You do not need to take ideas for them to be used, ideas exist in the metaphysical and using one has absolutely no impact on another person's ability to use it. Draining water from a lake does. Dumping sewage in a lake does. It's not equivalent.

<b-but using my ideas decreases their value!

Value is not an intrinsic piece of anything, much less information. Things have value because people give them value. To say that performing actions which decrease the value of your property is a violation of your property rights is ridiculous. Do you also believe that someone buying a piece of land neighboring yours and setting up a rival business is a violation of your property rights and gives you justification to walk across the property line and shoot them in the head? If so, you should probably argue that instead of gunning for IP.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Anonymous 04/25/19 (Thu) 01:15:56 No.101611

>>101610

<oh no three threads died, what now? Clean the mess!

I am not completing any more captchas because of this site's fault, fuck, you.

The three threads remain.- L

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Anonymous 04/25/19 (Thu) 01:24:32 No.101612

>>101610

Now I will assert your bullshit claims yes I am doubleposting, stay mad moralfag

>Do you also believe that someone buying a piece of land neighboring yours and setting up a rival business is a violation of your property rights and gives you justification to walk across the property line and shoot them in the head?

Such a situation could be justified depending on the framework we have as a contest, there can only be one company that does provide defense services with the legitimization necesary to be assigned the authority of trying to impose the defense rights of the third parties that pay them (their costumers), while there can be individuals who defend themselves in a consistent basis there cannot be more than one collective that does such a thing, as the mere existence of other collective supposes an instant aggresion towards the original one that possesed such authority, this is exactly the same reasons why labour unionist and communist should be purged or persecuted as the animals they are, you cannot propose a framework of ethics that respects those you do not follow the framework as it does promote evilness, thus, being, unethical or ineffective in its ethicness.

TLDR: Violent imposition of monopolies is perfectly ethical according to libertarian principles as it is just another form of market competition, which is different from individual survival and self-ownership, being business collective by definition.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Anonymous 04/25/19 (Thu) 01:30:13 No.101613

>>101612

I don't agree with your reasoning but it doesn't matter because it's completely irrelevant. Assume that it's a cake store, since we're talking about whether or not decreasing the value of your property counts as aggression, not the violation of some sort of weird universal Highlander contract.

So initially, you owned a cake store, and that cake store had a monopoly on the cake market in our hypothetical town, thereby increasing the value of the cake store dramatically. Another person opens up a cake store, thereby harming your cake store's value by taking away its monopoly. Does that count as aggression in your mind?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Anonymous 04/25/19 (Thu) 03:24:15 No.101615

Being abundant is not the same thing as literally not being scarce. No matter how abundant water or air may be, there is still a fixed quantity of air or water that exists on your property, and if that particular quantity of air or water is altered, your property rights have been violated. If the disc on which you store content is tampered with, then your property has been violated. If a different disc, owned by a different person, that happens to store very similar content, is altered, your personal disc is not altered. Nothing that you own has been tampered with. Your property has not been violated. No intellectual property is property at all, and outside of trademarks none of it can be reasonably enforced in the free market.

>As both a Disney and Activision-Blizzard shareholder you are literally taking food out of my mouth.

>as the owner of a state-granted monopoly, competition is literally taking food out of my mouth

>as the producer of an inferior good, higher quality goods are literally taking food out of my mouth

>as the owner of a terrible restaurant, bad reviews are literally taking food out of my mouth

Nigger-tier argument, go ask for gibs somewhere else you tripleposting cockmongler. If your ability to compete on the market has been reduced, make yourself more competitive instead of kvetching and begging for a handout.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Anonymous 04/26/19 (Fri) 00:50:01 No.101648

>>101613

It all boils down at how damaging that value decrease is, the most fundamental base for all property rights is "might makes right", those unable to exercise any might as social leverage (i.e. animals) are unable to possess property, like Rhodesians defending their lands, if you are unable to defend something, then, it is not yours by definition.

>Does that count as aggression in your mind?

Funny to see what kind of buzzwords you use to defend your ridiculous points, self-defense is not an aggresion, is the violence uses with the purpuse of preventing or neutralizing more aggresions from OTHER people, those unable to defend themselves (like animals, or little children- i.e. see Rothbard's case for adoption markets) are not only unable to have property, but are also able to be uses LIKE property.

You are mumbling some socialistic-tier autistic bullshit bro, why is it so difficult for statists like you to understand that people should be free to defense their property and business to thrive and compete? You are literally comparing violence with aggresion like a statists compares the social contract with self-ownership & property-rights.

Suck it, retard.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Anonymous 04/26/19 (Fri) 01:26:44 No.101650

>>101648

>It all boils down at how damaging that value decrease is

That's retarded. Rights violations are binary; they either happen or they do not. You can't violate rights halfway, so it's nonsensical to assume that severity plays into whether a rights violation has occurred.

>the most fundamental base for all property rights is "might makes right"

No, it isn't. First because that implies rights are relative (by definition they can't be), second because there are wide variety things which you can enforce by might which are decidedly not property. Propertarianism is gay and you should strongly consider electroshock therapy if you believe in htis.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.